“….. trust assets held by a trustee in trust, do not form part of the personal property of such trustee as a matter of law” (extract from judgment below)
What happens if your home is registered in the name of a trust and you get divorced? Do you get a share of the house’s value?
A trust attacked
The recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment of WT and Others v KT (933/2013)  ZASCA 9 illustrates –
• A husband and wife had married in community of property.
• On divorce, the wife claimed a 50% share in their matrimonial home on the basis that it fell into the joint estate.
• The husband countered that the house belonged to a discretionary family trust of which he and his brother were the trustees, the beneficiaries to be chosen by them from amongst his children.
• Before they were married, the parties had moved into the house. The trust had bought it 2 years after that.
• The parties married a year later, and lived on in the house for another 9 years until divorce.
• The wife argued that the trust’s assets fell into the joint estate because –
• The High Court agreed with the wife and ordered that the trust’s assets fall into the joint estate.
• The SCA however allowed the appeal on the basis that -
• The end result - the trust keeps its house, leaving the ex-wife to pay some (no doubt substantial) legal costs.
Lessons for trustees and spouses
A critical factor here was that the parties were married in community of property, the court in such a case being as a general rule confined to ordering a 50/50 split between the spouses.
In contrast, with a marriage out of community of property, a divorce court has a wide discretion to redistribute assets between the parties and to order that a particular asset (including an asset of a third party like a trust) belongs to one or other of the parties. Had the parties in this case been married out of community of property, the wife’s allegations of mismanagement of the trust would have been relevant and could have changed the outcome.
Two things to take away from this case –
The “out of community of property” case referred to in the judgment at  is Badenhorst v Badenhorst (07/2005)  ZASCA 116;  2 All SA 363 (SCA)
Jack Crook (LLB Lond, LLB Rhod) is the author of LawDotNews, a monthly newsletter which is personalised and e-mailed to your firm's clients compliments of your firm. DotNews also offers a suite of “Marketing and Communication Strategy” services incorporating the provision of Websites, Blogs and Social Media services, integrated with your client newsletters. Readers are welcome to contact Jack at firstname.lastname@example.org, or visit his web site at www.dotnews.co.za for further details. © DotNews
The general statement that Courts have a discretion to redistribute assets where parties are married out of community of property, is only correct in respect of such marriages concluded before the commencement of the Matrimonial Property Act (MPA), i e 1/11/88. S 7(3) Divorce Act. See also M v M 2014 (4)SA 384 (KZP). Also, as the court had not made a finding on the "alter ego" claim, it cannot be said that a Court will only entertain such a claim where the marriage is out of community of property. The reason why the Court in WT vs KT did not deem the Trust assets part of the joint estate was because the wife's allegations on the alter ego hobby horse were without substance, and as she was not a beneficiary or trustee, she had no locus standi.
After thought: With all due respect, I am of the opinion that the alter ego principle is not the ideal peg to get to the trust assets. Why not plain and simple that it is unfair that a spouse put assets in a trust in which the other spouse would have shared, had it been held by the spouse personally. In most cases the claiming spouse's contribution to the accumulation and growth of the trust assets are exactly the same , whether owned personally or in trust.